A university’s brandclearly contributes toits ability to attract the“right” kind of studentsand staff, and it affectsthe career prospectsof its alumni andemployees thereafter.But is it possible toput a figure on thevalue of branding toa particular highereducation institution?

One man says it is –roughly. Pat Freeland-Small, chief marketingofficer at the Universityof Melbourne, cites a2002 study by Interbrandand J. P. Morgan thatshows that brandingaccounts, on average, fora third of the marketcapitalisation of commer-cial companies; the restof the value of the stockis in their reportedtangible net assets.

For some companies,branding accounts for

significantly more. TheMcDonald’s brand, thestudy concludes,accounts for more than70 per cent of share-holder value; in 2002 thismeant the brand wasworth $26.4 billion(£16.4 billion). ForDisney, brand was worth68 per cent, or $29.3 bil-lion. In addition, severalstudies, includingresearch from HarvardUniversity and the Uni-versity of South Carolina,showed that companieswith strong brands out-

performed the market.As universities do not

have stock, there is novalue for market capitali-sation. However, saysFreeland-Small, if weunderstand from com-mercial companies thatbranding, on average,adds a value to theirstock equal to roughlyhalf the value of theirtangible assets, it ispossible to reach acrude approximation ofuniversity brand values.

Using this formula,based on net assets

in 2009-10, this givesHarvard’s brand a valueof $15.85 billion, StanfordUniversity $10.69 billion,the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology$5.16 billion, the Univer-sity of California, Berkeley$2.32 billion, the Univer-sity of Cambridge $1.97billion, and the Universityof Oxford $1.47 million.

“Placing these univer-sities in the context ofcommercial companies,this puts Harvard in thetop 20 worldwide, aheadof Nike, Pepsi and Amex,”says Freeland-Small.

“It also begs the ques-tion as to why universityassets have not yet beenconsidered as a factor forrankings. Their assetsdrive their capability, andthis analysis shows [thatit is possible to] use theirnet assets to give someproxy as to what theirbrand value might be.”

10 March 2011 Times Higher Education 35

for hiring and recruiting excellent youngresearchers and professors.”

Of course, reputation and brand are notthe same thing. But Pat Freeland-Small, chiefmarketing officer at the University of Mel-bourne, says the former feeds the latter.

The world elite of universities, he says, donot need to advertise, “but in a way they areadvertising. They are constantly communicat-ing the quality of what they do through theirpeople and what they naturally put out…It istheir people, their quality of research – notionsthat come through the academic community –that advertise their international profile.

“It will be the quality, the capital, that uni-versities are perceived to have that will start todrive…the development of global brands.”

Freeland-Small joined Melbourne from theFoster’s Group, where he was business devel-opment director. He oversaw the university’sbranding as it introduced the “Melbournemodel”, a radical restructuring of the under-graduate curriculum designed to align it withstructures in the US and Europe. He says heinitially had to work just to make peopleaware of the value of the university brand.

“There hasn’t been any sort of formalisedevaluation of university brands because univer-sities are not listed on the stock exchange.”

So what is Melbourne’s “brand”? And is ittrue to the reality or just a marketing man’sconstruction? Freeland-Small says it is aboutbeing “guided by the public-spirited aspects ofbeing a university within the city of Melbourneand state of Victoria, but with world excellencein mind”.

Phrases such as “heart and soul”, “truth-ful” and “authentic” recur in his description.

“The academic community can be verycynical,” he says. “It was important to keepthings real. The proposition was basically oneof the university striving for excellence inresearch and learning” – a branding messagethat was “the sort of proposition that theacademic community bought into anyway”.

As that implies, not all branding derivesfrom and is directed by marketing teams.An interesting example of what might be

termed “soft” branding – based in representa-tions of a university’s research or scholarshiprather than overt marketing – is the broad-casting of the lectures on justice by MichaelSandel of Harvard University, the topinstitution in our reputation rankings.

After being shown by a Boston-based publicTV station and online, the lectures by Sandel,the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass professor ofgovernment, were picked up by the BBC in theUK and by a public broadcaster in Hong Kong.

Viewers see Sandel deliver his lectures inHarvard’s impressive Sanders Theatre: alldark-wood panelling, pews and balconies.Sandel himself, with his receding hair and thinlips, is said to be the physical inspiration forMontgomery Burns in The Simpsons. But un-like that character, Sandel comes across aslikeable and witty. He smiles, he jokes, heengages with his students’ ideas and takes thetrouble to ask their names. He makes the workof Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kantaccessible without dumbing down.

But the camera spends as much time on the

KERCHING! VALUING BRANDS PUTS HARVARD AHEAD OF NIKE AND PEPSI

S TA N F O R DU N I V E R S I T Y

This selection is not exhaustive and is intended only to give a picture of how the value of someelite universities’ brands might compare with that of some large multinational companies.

The commercial companies’ brand values are based on Interbrand’s 100 best global brands, 2010;the universities’ brand values are calculated as above.

WHO IS THE REAL THING? A SNAPSHOT OF HIGH-RATED BRANDS

Brand Country of origin Brand value ($m)

US 70,452

US 15,851

US 14,061

US 13,944

US 13,706

Japan 11,356

US 10,692

US 9,665

US 5,156

US 4,958

Germany 4,404

Japan 4,351

US 2,315

UK 1,967

UK 1,467

DAVI

DSM

ITH

032-039_THE_MAR1011.qxp:Layout 1 7/3/11 11:14 Page 35